« The Devil is in the Details on CEO Pay | Matthew Saroff's Blog | Richard B. Cheney Will You Please Go Now! »
Friends Don't Let Friends Link to the AP
__AP Photo__________"Hope" Poster
With one notable exception,* I have avoided their story, and used Google News to find an alternate when I found a story of theirs.
Well, the Associated Press moron brigade is at it again, with their suing Shepard Fairey, the artist who created the Obama "Hope" poster, because he based the poster on an AP Photo.
As you can see, it's not a tracing, it's based on a photo, and clearly fair use. The author took the expression, and you can find dozens of pictures with a similar expression, and little else from the photograph, and what's more, it appears that the AP may not even have right to the photograph, as the photographer, a stringer named Mannie Garcia, never signed a contract with the AP:
2) Where you either an employee, or a freelance photographer, as defined by their contract, for the AP when you took this image?Needless to say, I will continue not linking to Associated Press stories, and using a Google® News search to find alternates.I was a temporary hire, filling in for a staffer at the AP. It is my understanding that I was neither a freelancer nor a staffer, but rather a temporary hire. I have never been an AP staff employee, and no, I have never signed an AP contract.3) So, you own the copyright to the image?The ownership of the copyright is in dispute, as per the AP. It is my understanding that since I was not a staffer, and was not a freelancer, and did not sign any contract, that I am the owner of the copyright, but I am in discussions with the AP over this issue.
*When via typo, they referred to Joe Lieberman as the 2000 Vice Presidential pRick.
Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.
Advertisement
A thought, in 2000 thanks to Scalia, et al, we got the Dick instead of the Prick as VP.
February 5, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is the AP making this an issue?
Or simply:
Why is the AP?
February 5, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, you beat me to this story. Anyway, I agree with you, this is ridiculous.
February 5, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely in bad form, but since I can't manage a working link, I'm copying an entry I submitted on another blog here, relative to the subject at hand.
**This is an interesting situation and I'll be interested to see how it plays out.
I support, to a broad extent, copyright laws and the need to protect artist's original works, other intellectual properties, etc.; however, I see this situation as very different in that we're talking about a public official and I can't get this out of my mind--My understanding is that the original photo was taken while Obama, as an elected official, was conducting the people's business during an official proceeding. So who, in fact, does the image belong to?
If I had to settle on any one person, organization or collective body, it would be the citizens.
Going further and as a hypothetical, what if the photo was taken during an official proceeding where the exact same image/pose was also videotaped, either by another news agency or a government employee? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming the same image or an extremely similiar image could be obtained using a frame by frame isolation of video. Then, who would own it? But I digress, I'm probably being as clear as mud here...
In any case, post rec'd and I agree the AP's actions and the claim on the image is petty and I hope they lose.**
February 5, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember also that IP (patent and copyright) is at its core public interest law.
Quoting the pertinent section of the constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."(emphasis mine)
IP is not property law, it is the general public giving up rights to an exclusive license because the increased creativity will benefit society as a whole.
February 5, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So snapshots being not all that creative aren't really IP in this sense? But if Ansel Adams spends an hour or a day setting up a shot, then it's protected.
February 6, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very consise reference; however, (and I'm not trying to be silly here) what does it mean?
Does the exclusive licensure issue weigh on the side of (1) individual for a perceived ultimate benefit of the people, despite the "but for" principle which would generally provide that the collective citizenry exercised, through election and de-facto representation, their primary and vested interest in such a "shot" being made possible?
I guess what I'm getting at is that I see the people's interest as paramount; therefore,
any images recorded while conducting the people's business, in chamber, should be accessible to all the people and not subjected to trademark consideratons by individuals.
Sorry, I'm almost a decade removed from any formal ConLaw education and need it explained to me as if I'm a grade-schooler....
February 6, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink